Ex Parte Ezerzer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2010

10233152 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/233,152 08/28/2002 Ran Ezerzer 20077-1464 7077
82976 7590 11/22/2010
NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP -- ORACLE
2479 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, SUITE 707
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
EXAMINER
CHEA, PHILIP J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAN EZERZER, ALI ALJANE, PIERRE ST. CYR, IMED
YAHMADI, ELI B. BORODOW, EDWIN KENNETH MARGULIES, and
PABLO M. RODRIGUEZ
____________________

Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 28-45
and 129 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). Claims 1-27 and 46-128 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to
communication networks and more particularly to the routing and handling
of a plurality of communications based on a variety of factors (Spec. 1, ¶
[0002]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 28 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
28. A communication system, comprising:

a telephony server interfaced with a first network;

a web server interfaced with a second network;

a terminal comprising an electronic device interfaced
with the second network; and

an application server comprising a plurality of
applications;

wherein the terminal is configured to determine a status of
a telephone interfaced with the first network and transmit to the
web server over the second network the status of the telephone,
wherein the status of the telephone indicates whether or not the
telephone is in use over the first network;

2
Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

wherein the web server is configured to receive the status
of the telephone from the terminal and transmit information
regarding the status of the telephone to the application server;

wherein the application server is configured to receive the
information from the web server, the plurality of applications are
configured to generate a control instruction based on the received
information, and the application server is configured to transmit
the control instructions to the telephony server; and

wherein the telephony server is configured to receive a
telephonic communication over the first network and the control
instruction from the application server, and is further configured
to route the telephonic communication to one of a plurality of
terminals interfaced with the first network based on the control
instructions.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jawahar US 6,298,356 B1 Oct. 02, 2001
Miloslavsky US 2002/0001300 Jan. 03, 2002
Judkins US 6,763,104 B1 Jul. 13, 2004
(filed on Feb. 24, 2000)

Claims 28-42 and 129 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jawahar in view of Miloslavsky.
Claims 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jawahar in view of Miloslavsky and Judkins.

3
Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in holding that Miloslavsky would have
suggested a terminal “configured to determine a status of a telephone
interfaced with the first network and transmit to the web server over the second
network the status of the telephone” (claim 28)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Miloslavsky
1. Miloslavsky discloses a call system 1350 which can call
telephone 1128 at customer site 1104 (pg. 9, ¶ [0100]; Fig. 8).
2. After service request processor (SRP) 1168 receives the telephone
number of phone 1128, it deposits the number in a list server 1356
comprised within the call system 1350 that is essentially a queue
which contains all the telephones which needs to be dialed out (pg. 9,
¶ [0101]).
3. Outbound call controller 1354 within the call system 1350 dials the
numbers in the list server 1356 comprised therein, and the call is
monitored by a call progression detector 1358 also comprised therein,
wherein the detector 1358 returns the status and the outbound call
controller 1354 takes appropriate action based on this status, such as
dialing another number in the list server 1356 if the number is busy
(pg. 9, ¶ [0102]).
4. When the telephone number corresponding to phone 1128 is dialed
and the detector 1358 determines that the line is not busy, outbound
4
Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

call controller 1354 comprising the detector 1358 requests a routing
server 1226 to find a free agent at provider site 1102 who is qualified
to handle the call to customer site 1104 (pg. 9, ¶ [0103])

IV. ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, Appellants argue that the “call progression detector [of
Miloslavsky], which is a part of the outbound call controller, determines the
status of the call” and “[b]ased on the status of the call, the outbound call
controller can either dial another number or transmit over a second network
a request to a routing server to find an agent to handle the call” (App. Br.
13). Thus, Appellants argue that “the status of the telephone is never
transmitted” in Miloslavsky, and any transmission “cannot be said to be
from a terminal and does not take place over the second network” (id.).
Though the Examiner concludes that “Miloslavsky teaches that a
status of the call is returned” and thus “there is a transmission of the status of
the telephone” (Ans. 9), after reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with
the Appellants that Miloslavsky fails to suggest a terminal configured to
“transmit to the web server over the second network the status of the
telephone” as required by claim 28.
Miloslavsky discloses a call system comprising an outbound call
controller that dials numbers in a list server comprised therein, and the call is
monitored by a call progression detector also comprised therein, wherein the
detector returns the status and the outbound call controller takes appropriate
action based on this status (FF 1-3). When a telephone number at a
customer site is dialed and the detector determines that the line is not busy,
outbound call controller comprising the detector requests a routing server to
5
Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

find a free agent at provider site who is qualified to handle the call to
customer site (FF 4).
Thus, though Miloslavsky discloses determining a status of a
telephone, the determination is made by the outbound call controller by its
detector comprised therein, and the outbound call controller itself then takes
appropriate action based on this status. Further, the outbound call controller
sends a request to the routing server, for example, to find a free agent.
Accordingly, though we agree with the Examiner that Miloslavsky discloses
a terminal “configured to determine a status of a telephone interfaced with
the first network” as required by claim 28, in the sections referenced by the
Examiner, we do not find any teaching of transmitting to a web server over
the second network the status of the telephone. In particular, we agree with
Appellants that “the status of the telephone is never transmitted” and any
transmission “does not take place over the second network” (Ans. 13).
We also find that Jawahar does cure the noted deficiencies missing
from Miloslavsky. Thus, we hold that Jawahar in view of Miloslavky would
not have suggested a terminal “configured to determine a status of a telephone
interfaced with the first network and transmit to the web server over the second
network the status of the telephone” as required by claim 28. As such, we
will reverse the rejection of representative claim 28 and claims 29-42 and
129 depending therefrom and falling therewith.

Claims 43-45
We also find that Judkins also does not cure these noted deficiencies
of Jawahar and Miloslavsky. As such, we will also reverse the rejection of
claims 43-45 over Jawahar in view of Miloslavsky and Judkins.
6
Appeal 2009-006961
Application 10/233,152

V. CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in holding claims 28-
45 and 129 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We have not sustained the Examiner's rejection with respect to any
claim on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 28-45
and 129 is reversed.

REVERSED

peb

NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP -- ORACLE
2479 E. BAYSHORE ROAD, SUITE 707
PALO ALTO, CA 94303
7